We’ve been calling the so-called “mainstream media” the “Democrat-media complex” for years, and with good reason. Time and again, operatives of the complex — formerly known as “reporters” — have proven their left-wing bias. It used to be they would thumb their nose at any suggestion of bias, but this election is different. Now, the New York Times is blaming GOP nominee Donald Trump for their pro-Clinton bias and actually argues that it’s necessary for the good of the country.
The Times’ columnist Jim Rutenberg wrote:
If you’re a working journalist and you believe that Donald J. Trump is a demagogue playing to the nation’s worst racist and nationalistic tendencies, that he cozies up to anti-American dictators and that he would be dangerous with control of the United States nuclear codes, how the heck are you supposed to cover him?
Because if you believe all of those things, you have to throw out the textbook American journalism has been using for the better part of the past half-century, if not longer, and approach it in a way you’ve never approached anything in your career. If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous, then your reporting is going to reflect that. You would move closer than you’ve ever been to being oppositional.
In other words, he argues that it’s all Trump’s fault and further claims that the complex really isn’t biased at all. Excuse me?
Breitbart’s Joel B. Pollack correctly notes:
The problem with this analysis is that while the opposition to Trump is more unified, and vociferous, than against any other Republican presidential candidate in recent memory (thanks in no small part to the ambivalence of Fox News), it is a difference in degree, not in kind.
In 2008 — to pick an arbitrary starting point — journalists swooned over the prospect of Barack Obama as the first black president, and coordinated to discuss attacks on Obama’s critics.
In one particularly noxious episode, a photographer working for the Atlantic photoshopped a cover image she had shot to cast McCain as a bloodthirsty monster.
In 2012, journalists plotted together to make Mitt Romney the target of Benghazi coverage, rather than Obama or Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — and CNN’s Candy Crowley infamously threw the second presidential debate to Obama.
There’s more — lots more. Fortunately, sites like this one, Breitbart.com and Newsbusters document left-wing media bias on a regular basis.
So how bad is the bias? One Twitter user noted:
Trump: "I heard a dog bark last night."
Media: "Trump announces plan to kill all dogs!"
That's honestly how it goes.
— Bill Mitchell (@mitchellvii) August 5, 2016
Over the weekend, the hashtag #HillaryCoverageIsCrap began trending on Twitter, with many expressing their outrage at the blatantly biased coverage.
— Little Comrade (@oursacredbeasts) August 8, 2016
Pollack correctly points out that no matter how docile or politically correct the GOP candidate is, operatives of the complex “will demonize him (or, as in Sarah Palin’s case, her.)”
Now that the Times has admitted the blatant bias exists, and it’s deliberately being done to put Hillary Clinton, perhaps the most evil person ever nominated by a major party, in the White House, perhaps conservatives should seriously consider boycotting these outlets and their advertisers.
Maybe a slump in ratings and ad revenue might make them re-think their positions.
Then again, maybe not…
- Photos raise questions about Hillary’s health: Does she take Diazepam for seizures?
- L.A. Times Op-ed bares media bias in Clinton coverage
- Media captures flags on floor at Hillary event, says nothing
- Billboards: ‘Dear Hillary, We have your back. (Love,) The media’
- Media fail: Orlando terrorist did not use an AR-15